FIrefox armagadd-on
-
This post is deleted!
-
@sebastian-galczynski You're a bit late. There's another thread discussing this
-
@dkf
That's weird, before starting the topic I searched for 'firefox' in posts and titles, sorted by date descending, and there was (and still is) nothing. Is there a bug in the search engine or I'm missing something?
-
@sebastian-galczynski said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
Is there a bug in the search engine
Yes. @ben_lubar hasn't clicked the "Refresh search indexes" button in a while.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@sebastian-galczynski said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
Is there a bug in the search engine
Yes. @ben_lubar hasn't clicked the "Refresh search indexes" button in a while.
-
@sebastian-galczynski said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@dkf
That's weird, before starting the topic I searched for 'firefox' in posts and titles, sorted by date descending, and there was (and still is) nothing. Is there a bug in the search engine or I'm missing something?I also could not find the topic back through the search box but I remember that @topspin had posted a solution so I found it back in his posting history - so I got there ... eventually
-
@sebastian-galczynski said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
That's weird, before starting the topic I searched for 'firefox' in posts and titles
FWIW, I'd only just been reading that thread at that point; it was very easy for me to find indeed since I had my browser history…
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
Yes. @ben_lubar hasn't clicked the "Refresh search indexes" button in a while.
Is this some webscale NoSQL contraption?
-
@sebastian-galczynski said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@Tsaukpaetra said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
Yes. @ben_lubar hasn't clicked the "Refresh search indexes" button in a while.
Is this some webscale NoSQL contraption?
Is that a trick question?
-
@sebastian-galczynski said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@Tsaukpaetra said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
Yes. @ben_lubar hasn't clicked the "Refresh search indexes" button in a while.
Is this some webscale NoSQL contraption?
Oh no, it's even better: the forum runs a custom PostgreSQL layer emulating a webscale NoSQL.
-
@levicki said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@JBert said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
Oh no, it's even better: the forum runs a custom PostgreSQL layer emulating a webscale NoSQL.
And PostgreSQL is emulated on SQLite database.
Stored in an S3 bucket accessed through a custom layer over Inform7
Amazon is on Earth
Database is south from the center of the Universe
-
@JBert said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
Oh no, it's even better: the forum runs a custom PostgreSQL layer emulating a webscale NoSQL.
It's both SQL and NoSQL until someone observes it.
-
@loopback0 The trick is that nobody wants to do that.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@sebastian-galczynski said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
Is there a bug in the search engine
Yes. @ben_lubar hasn't clicked the "Refresh search indexes" button in a while.
Why isn't this just done as a nightly job?
-
@mikehurley:
?
-
-
@JBert said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@loopback0 The trick is that nobody wants to do that.
Ofcourse not because it would rip a hole in the space-time continuum.
-
@Flips I wouldn't mind if this entire new wave of JS-y forum engines got lost in a hole in the space-time continuum.
-
@El_Heffe said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
It is:
That's a very unusual implementation of /bin/yes. Which version of Unix is this?
-
@sebastian-galczynski said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
That's a very unusual implementation of /bin/yes. Which version of Unix is this?
@ben_lubar is involved so almost certainly Chrome OS.
Filed under: Chrome OS is Linux,
-
Notice the built-in rate-limiting mechanism.
-
@loopback0 said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@sebastian-galczynski said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
That's a very unusual implementation of /bin/yes. Which version of Unix is this?
@ben_lubar is involved so almost certainly Chrome OS.
Filed under: Chrome OS is Linux,
"Refresh Search Indexes" isn't a thing because they're updated as posts are updated, but I can delete and re-construct them if I actually need to.
-
@ben_lubar said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@loopback0 said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@sebastian-galczynski said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
That's a very unusual implementation of /bin/yes. Which version of Unix is this?
@ben_lubar is involved so almost certainly Chrome OS.
Filed under: Chrome OS is Linux,
"Refresh Search Indexes" isn't a thing because they're updated as posts are updated, but I can delete and re-construct them if I actually need to.
-
@levicki said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
This forum parser is broken as shit
Just one of many reasons for my previous post.
-
@levicki said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
This forum parser is broken as shit, strikethrough doesn't work when adjacent character is `-`.Example~~-y of broken~~
Apparently
-isn't a letter or number?
-
@Tsaukpaetra I'm guessing it's not a
\w.edit: well example~~_y~~ doesn't work, but _ is special (like, special) so something might be happening.
\wshould match[A-Z_a-z].
-
@brie said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@Tsaukpaetra I'm guessing it's not a
\w.edit: well example~~_y~~ doesn't work, but _ is special (like, special) so something might be happening.
I wonder...
-fuckeryHa! backslash-to-escape wins again!
Edit: Though, you can't really tell so it's
anyways...
-
@Tsaukpaetra you don't even need the backslash there.
-fuckery
-
@brie said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@Tsaukpaetra you don't even need the backslash there.
-fuckeryBut @levicki said...
Example~~-y of broken~~
Wait, did he mean Example
-y of brokenperhaps?
-
@levicki I think the preferred way is to use
<del>tags, because Markdown is a strong independent markup language who don't need nomanHTML
-
@brie said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
\wshould match[A-Z_a-z].Apart from the missing digits… and other letter-like/number-like unicode characters.
-
@dkf
I meant to include the digits, but forgot somewhere in the process of satisfying my OCD by figuring out how to properly sort A-Z,_, anda-zby their ANSI codes.(I knew that
A-Zcomes beforea-z. It's where_should go that I wasn't sure of.)
-
@brie It's a set. Order really doesn't matter in this case. (Sort the characters by the number of foreground pixels they use in your favourite font family/size.)
-
@dkf I know it doesn't matter. But I wanted them to be sorted.
-
Technical Details on the Recent Firefox Add-on Outage – Mozilla Hacks - the Web developer blog
Recently, Firefox had an incident in which most add-ons stopped working. This was due to an error on our end: we let one of the certificates used to sign add-ons ...
-
@sebastian-galczynski said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
That's weird, before starting the topic I searched for 'firefox' in posts and titles, sorted by date descending, and there was (and still is) nothing.
Indeed. The thread only mentions mozilla (the origanization), not firefox.
-
@Zecc What's interesting is the blog makes no mention ever of timestamping (the operation that allows a signed object to remain valid beyond certificate expiration). This suggests they won't even try to add support for that as part of their solution...
-
Mozilla to track infrastructure time-bombs in wake of recent Firefox armagadd-on
Browser maker lays out initial details of how an intermediate certificate expiration played hell with its add-on ecosystem.
-
@TimeBandit I'm sure it'll be just as effective as whatever they've done the last time they've had this exact issue.
-
@Zecc: interestingly, they offer a decent argument for not allowing users to disable signatures checks for add-ons: before they did so, shady software would disable that option automatically to install their crappy add-ons. So this time, it's not a case of "just because" from Mozilla.
-
@Zerosquare I wonder how hard it is for malware to inject custom certificate into Firefox process, or stub out the checking function.
-
@Zerosquare said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@Zecc: interestingly, they offer a decent argument for not allowing users to disable signatures checks for add-ons: before they did so, shady software would disable that option automatically to install their crappy add-ons. So this time, it's not a case of "just because" from Mozilla.
It's a good point, but they only apply it to the main releases. The ESR and all of the in-development versions let you turn it off. (It's how I worked around it in my VMs.)
-
@Gąska said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@Zerosquare I wonder how hard it is for malware to inject custom certificate into Firefox process, or stub out the checking function.
They consider it in the blog post, and are betting on shady software not crossing that line, because then it would classify as actual malware (instead of "just" shitty software).
-
@Zerosquare right. Forgot those exist.
-
@Zerosquare said in FIrefox armagadd-on:
@Zecc: interestingly, they offer a decent argument for not allowing users to disable signatures checks for add-ons: before they did so, shady software would disable that option automatically to install their crappy add-ons. So this time, it's not a case of "just because" from Mozilla.
Mandatory singing of add-ons is a great idea and not allowing users to disable it is also a great idea, because there's no point in requiring signing if people can just turn it off.
And then you do something stupid and completely break everyone's add-ons, and everyone is fucked because you can't disable it.
So now, Mozilla is saying they are changing the way they handle this so it won't happen again
which is the very first thing they should have done way back when they first decided to force add-on signing.
-
-
@brie that breaks perfectly on mobile.
-
New?
More like "it's back after we've accidentally make it stop working".
Oh. Thanks, I guess?
-
@Zecc Achievements in your web browser?
Is this a world I have to live in?
Goes over to mozilla HQ to burn it down
-
It seems to be an add-on, so this time it's not exactly mozilla's fault. Of course we can expect them to get the inspiration sooner or later…
